Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
5:30 pm, May 10th, 2023 - 16 comments
Categories: Daily review -
Tags:
The current rise of populism challenges the way we think about people’s relationship to the economy.We seem to be entering an era of populism, in which leadership in a democracy is based on preferences of the population which do not seem entirely rational nor serving their longer interests. ...
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
He really is self-serving sack of shit.
The inside story of Boris Johnson, a clown at No 10
This account by Anthony Seldon and Raymond Newell is as fascinating and flawed as the man himself.
[…]
Brexit is the great turning point in British history that made Johnson as prime minister possible, and the greatest, bitterest joke of all is that he seems never really to have believed in it. Chronically indecisive until the last minute, he wavered between supporting Remain or Leave, trying to decide which would serve his interests best. In the words of Oliver Lewis, “his Brexit right hand”, quoted in this book: “It was a straight calculation. If I come out for Brexit and we lose, I position myself as a hero Eurosceptic, from which I can win the [Tory] leadership at the next contest. If we win, then I’ll be clear favourite for prime minister.” Of course, he had no plan for how Brexit might actually work. On the morning of the result he was heard muttering under his breath: “Holy shit, f***, what have we done?”
https://archive.li/6A3is (the sunday times)
And he was followed by the stupidist person, Truss, to have led Britain, and possibly, any democracy in the world. Even a senile Regan would have been smarter.
Fintan O'Toole is doing really excellent analysis on the United Kingdom's post-Brexit trajectory.
It's pretty low and pretty dark.
I'm pretty sure I suggested at the time (or maybe shortly after) that none of that crowd actually supported Brexit on principle. It was never more than a useful vehicle for pursuing their real agenda of entrenching power among the haves, and removing tiresome (to them) restrictions that protected the general populace.
Her first day back in the shearing shed will be fun.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/131998629/rural-sportswoman-of-the-year-embarrassed-and-apologetic-for-blackface-photos
Reminds me of the brief scene in The Piano where one of the local Māori broke open a cask of flour, popped his head in and emerged in 'white-face'…After a bit of hard ribbing from his mates, he says 'I'm beginning to hate yous guys already!'. Or words to that effect. Brilliant, trenchant scene.
That's from Utu.
Thanks, I thought Utu first, but then thought I was wrong, as it's such a light-hearted scene.
Iwi don't want it. Our community don't want it. The public doesn't want it. Nor does the technology sector.
But thanks to the Labour seabed mining will not be banned:
They want a select committee inquiry instead. Decisive, widely-supported action on climate change does not come from this government:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/489658/bid-to-ban-deep-sea-mining-defeated-our-community-don-t-want-it-the-public-doesn-t-want-it
For the climate, for our future, to force Labour into action, party vote Green or Te Paati Māori.
Labour has already supported the banning of seabed mining in international waters.
Also the 2015 Supreme Court decision against the proposal to mine phosphate off the Chatham Islands already means that seabed mining causing "material damage" to the environment cannot in effect be approved under New Zealand law already.
As a result New Zealand remains nearly 100% reliant on imports of fertiliser for its dominant economy, agriculure.
But sure, join in with the histrionics.
The Greens have been advocating for a ban on seabed mining for a decade at least.
Labour do not do what they say they will do on these issues; Still okay to mine conservation land despite 2017 promise, still issuing oil/gas exploration permits, etc. etc.
It isn't histrionic to point out the difference between rhetoric and their actual legislative actions.
https://www.greens.org.nz/stronger_action_on_seabed_mining_needed
I'm happy to pay my subs to get Forest and Bird to stop mining for coal. Also bottom-trawling the Hauraki Gulf.
But I'd oppose a ban of all mining of our Continental Shelf seafloor.
The EPA shows well enough that it successfully regulates seabed proposals and where required kills them.
But then I quite like our ability to mine ironsands so that NZ can produce its' own roofing steel, or the ability to mine ordinary sand for glass and for rebuilding beaches, or in future stop importing phosphate from Morocco, or more ironsand for steel off Taranaki, and a bunch of initiatives along the West Coast.
Also there would be nothing wrong with mining copper, zinc and others stuff from around our Kermadec fumeroles since they rebuild themselves so quick. You never know unless you get the chance to try.
I don't see why anyone would rely on perpetual shipped imports from overseas to keep this country going. Otherwise we are pure price-and-supply takers as we are for oil.
Forest and Bird doesn't make the laws, this government does. It's nice that you help fund Forest and Bird but all they can do is demand Labour does what it says it wants to; Eugenie Sage’s members bill does just that and that is what Forest and Bird support:
https://www.forestandbird.org.nz/show-your-support-no-new-mines-conservation-land
Is that the same forest and bird whose current leader likes grabbing a gun..and going into that forest to blow some birds/animals away..?
(Where the fu*k are monty python when you really need them..?)
Nicola Toki is the current chief executive, she replaced Kevin Hague. I doubt either do as you claim but I'm sure you have evidence to back it up?
You thinking of Fish and Game?